| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Cougar and Leopard Weight Comparisons | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 7 2015, 08:12 PM (13,217 Views) | |
| chui | Dec 8 2015, 10:32 PM Post #31 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Weights of Utah cougars from the paper, "Notes on Cougar Productivity" 1961 by Robinette. The average weight of 34 males was 71kg and the heaviest weight in the sample was 87kg. However, it's not clear whether all weights were obtained by the researchers themselves or included second hand info from hunters as well. Also, only weights of 57kg (125lb) or greater were included in the sample as this was the criteria used to identify adult males. Using this method, males who were adult but were particularly small would have been unnecessarily excluded from the sample, resulting in a higher mean weight. If we use the same criteria for the Iranian leopard sample which showed very high variation (40-91kg) and only include weights of 55kg or more, the average weight rises from 66kg (n22) to 74kg (n16). And interestingly, the average weight of a more recent sample of 15 adult male cougars from northern Utah (Laundre 2007; see my previous post) was only 57.2kg. Thus the aging and selection criteria used for a sample can hugely influence the average weight and therefore we cannot always compare mean weights from different sources directly. ![]() Regarding the weights of particularly large cougars mentioned in this excerpt. Most are quoted from Young and Goldman 1946 who provided excellent first hand data on skull measurements, however, the weights given in their book was second hand data from various hunters. Some of these early weights may have been reliable but others seem very questionable. The alleged 276lb Arizona cougar with intestines removed (and thus well over 300lbs alive) is particularly ludicrous in my opinion, akin to a 900lb lion. This record has made its way into general reference books and websites without any real justification much like the idea of 700lb Siberian tigers. True authorities on the subject however reject this supposed record as it is based purely on hearsay with no supporting evidence. The Boone and Crockett Club which has recorded hundreds of record size cougars from North America over the past century and can be considered the ultimate authority on the subject, does not accept this record and states the maximum recorded weight for the species to be 227lbs (Roosevelt's huge Colorado cougar). Similarly, Maurice Hornocker a leading scientific authority on cougars also considers Roosevelt's huge cat to be the biggest ever documented and heavier claimed weights to be unreliable. From Dr. Hornocker's book, “Cougar Ecology and Conservation” 2009. His numbers are a little off but point remains. ![]() After the 276lb claim, the second highest weight that is often claimed for the cougar is Frank Hibben's 265lb cat from Utah. This one isn't as extreme and since it wasn't said to be weighed after being eviscerated, it leaves the possibility the weight was with a gorged stomach making it more believable. Nonetheless, Hibben's credibility is questionable. Most people seem unaware of the fact that Hibben also claimed record measurements for leopards he hunted. In his book, "Under the African Sun", he states that leopards can weigh up to 250lbs and he would know because he claims to have shot the biggest ever recorded. The longest leopard skull (taken in Kenya 1956) listed in Rowland Wards is a very questionable entry from Frank Hibben, this skull's measurements at a whopping 298mm long but only 149mm wide were almost certainly fabricated. Moreover, Hibben then shot an apparently even bigger leopard in 1969 whose skull is not recorded but was said to measure 8'5" long and supposedly the biggest and heaviest leopard to ever come from Africa. You can read about this leopard here: The Cat that Broke the Rules and the Records and also here: Kwaheri. This actually looks like a pretty big leopard and his cougar may have been really big as well but unfortunately in his attempt to claim records he clearly made some exaggerations and turned what may have been genuinely huge 180-200lb cats into mythical 260lb trophy hunter tales. Looking at all the available data on the weight of cougars, there is a clear discrepancy between modern scientific weights and those from early hunters. Claims of 90kg or more don't seem uncommon from early hunters but most of them don't provide any supporting evidence such as preserved skulls to authenticate the large size of their trophies, and photographs of some of these allegedly giant cougars show fairly mediocre specimens. Furthermore, in some cases the claimed weights were apparently taken a few days after death and/or after being field dressed (guts removed) which makes them even more extreme and questionable. In comparison, modern data of a large number of cougars weighed by researchers suggests the biggest are usually around 80-85kg (see the previous posts). There certainly are reliable records of heavier cougars but these are of very exceptional specimens out of thousands reported by reliable hunting sources. The Boone and Crockett Club has recorded the skulls of hundreds of record size/above average cougars hunted in the past century. The very top rankings thus represent the very pinnacle specimens of North American cougars. And of the very top ranking cougars (top 10 or so out of over 700) the weights are mostly in the 90-100kg range (not adjusted for stomach content), with Roosevelt's 103kg cougar being the very heaviest. Excerpts from Young and Goldman's book, “The puma, mysterious American cat” 1946. A lot of these reputed weights from early hunters along with body lengths (some over 9 feet) are highly suspect, however, some of the data is probably reliable. For example in Table 3 the average weight of 9 adult males (4 years or older) trapped in Arizona was 57kg with the heaviest at 66kg. These figures are consistent with modern scientific data from nearby regions. ![]() ![]() ![]() Pictures of some of these allegedly huge cougars from the same book. If we are to believe the claims, these cougars would have been heavier than any recorded by modern scientists, even 3 days after death and with the guts removed. ![]() Possibly the claimed 276lb record, the corresponding text on pg 53 refers to that famous record but it's not entirely clear if the photo is of that particular cougar.
Edited by chui, Dec 10 2015, 04:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| ImperialDino | Dec 9 2015, 01:42 AM Post #32 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
MOST of the animals captured and weighed aren't full grown. Alot of people don't know it, but Cougars can leave their mother at 18 months, YET they'll grown until their about 4 years old. 27-30 33 months isn't a full grown speicemen. |
![]() |
|
| chui | Dec 9 2015, 07:24 AM Post #33 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ImperialDino, if you look at all the data posted in this thread it should be clear there are plenty of cougars captured and weighed who were full mature adults. I agree that the weight of a specimen is hugely dependent on the age and though a 3 year old may be considered adult by some it is far from full grown. However, this applies to all big cats not just cougars. Some info on the size and weight of Sri Lankan leopards. From the book, "For the Leopard: A Tribute to the Sri Lankan Leopard" 2002 by Rukshan Jayewardene. Based on his analysis of hunting records and his experience with leopards at the National Zoo, the author suggests that Sri Lankan leopards are larger than most other populations. However, he notes this is only a preliminary conclusion based on the limited data available. Nonetheless, he provides some interesting info which is worth sharing. Most importantly, a problem leopard which was captured in the Gal Oya National Park in southern Sri Lanka was weighed at 81kg (178lb). This is the heaviest reliable weight out of the few available I'm aware of for a Sri Lankan leopard and the only one from a live wild specimen I've seen. He also mentions another leopard shot by a hunter which allegedly measured 8'4" long and weighed 114kg (250lbs) also from the Gal Oya area. This is a very extreme weight and I think just out of the realms of possibility for a leopard. IMO the only way this could have been an authentic weight is if it was a huge 90-100kg leopard fully gorged with meat. But as Jayewardene notes these are only the hunter's claimed measurements thus cannot be taken at face value. Also note the author is referring to body length (as was usual for hunted leopards) when discussing record size not weight. ![]() ![]() In the book, "Big Cats: Kingdom of Might" 1993 by Tom Brakesfield, the author states that leopards weighing 90kg have been recorded in Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, no details are provided to ascertain whether there is any value to this statement. With regards to the 90kg specimens from the Kenyan highlands, this appears to refer to trophy hunted leopards from the region for which there is other supporting info available.
Edited by chui, Dec 9 2015, 07:32 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| HerpestidaeB4Cat | Jan 25 2016, 12:25 PM Post #34 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
any way we can see some pictures of these poachers with their heads on a spike or in prison cells ?
Edited by HerpestidaeB4Cat, Jan 25 2016, 12:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| WaveRiders_ | Apr 29 2016, 03:56 AM Post #35 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am interested to have your opinions on the record leopard shot in the 1930s by the Maharajah Juddha Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana of Nepal allegedly measuring 9 ft 4 inches (2845 mm) in total length over curves and other leopards claimed of similar length such as for instance the well known male leopard from Ruanda shot by J. E. Church in the very old days supposed measuring 9 ft 7 inches (2921 mm) before skinning. I am unaware if you already discussed this topic. In case you can direct me to the related thread. My view on this issue is the following. Concerning any suggested very large average / maximm size of Nepal leopards one century ago we do know that the leopards of largest body size generally come from regions where they are the apex carnivores or, in a few cases, are sympatric with a population of larger hypercarnivore (the lion and the tiger) living at low density. These circumstances primarily occur / occurred in Central/Western Africa (Congo, Gabon and adjacent regions), Persia, Sri Lanka and certainly not from most pristine jungles of Nepal where tigers were very much abundant. One of the few leopard populations appearing particularly large, robust and with very much impressive skulls co-existing with a larger carnivore present at non-so-low density (specifically the lion) are the leopards from the mountains of Kenya. The general trend does not mean exceptionally large leopards cannot pop up now and then in most regions inhabited by large leopard subspecies. But anywhere in either Asia or Africa a wild leopard of 9 ft 4 inches or 9 ft 7 inches in total length accurately and properly measured over curves as he laid on the ground before padding him (in case) is in my opinion a virtually impossible occurrence in historical time about as much as a 12 ft (and no doubt even quite less then that) wild tiger or a 11 ft 6 inches (and no doubt even quite less then that) wild lion. Apart from the unrealistic total length (my primary concern), and possible suggestion of an incredibly long tail (a figure that could itself be unrealistic), a fully grown adult male leopard as long as 2850 - 2900+ mm in total length over curves (properly measured) even with just a normal build would weigh well over 125 - 130 kg at empty stomach, meaning at least as much as an average size adult female Bengal tiger at empty stomach. No wild leopard has come so far any close to such a weight being first close possibly the male leopard reported by Iranian zoologists from Tonekabon, northern Iran, as allegedly weighing 115 kg and all other heaviest leopards around the world below 100 kg (including any stomach contents). WaveRiders Edited by WaveRiders_, Apr 29 2016, 04:15 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ophiophagy | May 1 2016, 03:47 AM Post #36 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
in person it looks a lot bigger than a leopard or jaguar idk maybe they were small leopards? except for one huge jaguar female cougars seem huge not as bulky like the jags |
![]() |
|
| chui | May 3 2016, 07:07 AM Post #37 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hello WaveRiders. I also think a length of 9 feet or more for a leopard is way too extreme and I wouldn't consider it reliable. The greatest total length reported for a leopard which I consider reliable is 8 feet 5.5 inches (between pegs) reported by Peter Turnbull-Kemp in his 1967 book. This leopard was killed by a trap gun in Cameroon, Central Africa and was the biggest Turnbull-Kemp had ever seen. The biggest that he had seen alive (before it was shot) was 7'11" and he said it was an exceptional sight in the field and had he not been involved with measuring it he would've readily believed a measurement of well over 8 feet. This suggests the Cameroon specimen must have been a real monster. Unfortunately, he didn't provide any other details for either of these huge leopards, including the location where the 7'11" leopard was taken. Interestingly, Turnbull-Kemp appears to have accepted the ridiculous record lengths for leopards listed in Rowland Wards including the 9'7" Rwanda specimen. However, I consider him a credible and useful source for his firsthand measurements of leopards which all appear very believable and not the secondary info he provides from others. I think he was allowing for way too much room for the possibility of freak exceptions. None the less, he himself states that a length over 8 feet for a leopard would be very exceptional and also points out that only one of the 7 records of 200lb+ leopards he considered reliable (as of 1967) exceeded 8 feet in total length. He further states that the biggest leopards (in terms of weight presumably) tend to be heavily built and short tailed and thus not necessarily the longest. Yet despite this he disappointingly devotes a large section of his book discussing record lengths for leopards rather than weights or other more interesting measurements. It should be pointed out that he specifically described the huge 8'5.5" Cameroon specimen and the 7'11 specimen as the biggest and not simply just the longest he had seen. To get some sense of how long very big leopards are it may be worthwhile looking at specimens whose large size is corroborated by skull measurements (the most credible measurements IMO) and where the total length has also been reported. For this we must rely on the Rowland Ward records where both these measurements are listed for a large number of particularly big leopards. As it is noted by Rowland Ward itself, the body length measurements cannot be verified by the author as they are the "owner's measurements" taken in the field. This is in contrast to skulls which are preserved and measured by an official measurer who generally should not have any vested interest in boasting the trophy's size. Of course, there are still some very questionable entries for skulls (ie. Mackenzie's lion skull and Hibbin's leopard skull) but generally speaking the skull records should have some credibility. In the 1975 Rowland Wards, the following are the ones I consider reliable. A huge leopard shot by G. Munn on Mt Kenya in 1961 which measured 8'2" long, weighed 212lbs (not sure about stomach content) and had an 18.75" skull (length+width). This is probably the heaviest recorded weight for a leopard I consider reliable and I suspect was probably one of the 7 records of 200lb+ leopards Turnbull-Kemp talks about as it was shot before his book was published in 1967. Another huge leopard shot on Mt Kenya in 1969 measured 7'10" with a weight of 204lbs and an 18.38" skull. In the nearby Aberdares mountains also in Kenya, a big leopard was shot in 1960 measuring 7'8.6" which reportedly weighed 192lbs (with empty stomach) and had a 17.5" skull (this trophy was later donated to the Yale Museum apparently). Another huge specimen from the Aberdares was shot in 1963 which measured 7'11" with an 18.25" skull. A leopard with nearly identical measurements is also recorded from Njoro (also in central Kenya) shot in 1971, measuring 7'10.5" long and with an 18.25" skull. I'm not aware if the weights for these 2 specimens were recorded. Outside of East Africa, a massive leopard was shot by Elgin Gates in 1958 in Chad which measured 8'2" and had an 18.81" skull. Another huge leopard is recorded from Sierra Leone, taken by P. Perfect in the early 1900s which measured 7'11" with an 11.44" long skull (width wasn't recorded but probably exceeded 18" in total score). As it can be seen most of these huge leopards were around the 8 foot mark so a leopard longer by an entire foot or more seems pretty far fetched. The only other Rowland Ward specimen which exceeds the 8 foot mark by any notable amount and may be credible was one shot by Herb Klein in Tanzania 1953 which supposedly measured 8'5" with an 18.63" skull. The skin of the huge Mt Kenya leopard hunted in the 1960's by G. Munn. ![]() With that being said, I've never put too much value in body length measurements due to the generally poor consistency with which they can be taken. Especially when no mention is made of the tail length to provide some indication of relative proportions which has always seemed really silly to me. Unfortunately however, it was this measurement which was usually recorded for hunted big cats historically and this is especially true for leopards. A lot of the hunters from Colonial India recorded very detailed measurements for tigers but only provided length measurement for leopards it seems. They appear to have been much less interested in the size of this smaller cat. This brings me to another point which is relevant to this thread. In the case of the leopard the emphasis when recording trophy size by most hunters historically was definitely on total body length. Thus despite the large number of leopards shot in colonial times the data available from that period on weights is very scanty. In contrast, there appears to have been much more interest among American hunters in the weight of cougars and thus there is a considerable amount of data of this sort published for this cat from early hunters (pre 1950). This IMO has led to a large imbalance in what has historically been published on the weights of these two cats in reference books. For the cougar where weight was a widely recorded statistic for trophies not only did that allow for a much larger pool of specimens being weighed and thus increased likelihood of particularly heavy weights being recorded/published but it also would've led to a greater tendency IMO to exaggerate weight to boast trophy size. Hence we have these ridiculous records of 120kg cougars (see my above post) which have become embedded in reference books while the maximum stated weights for leopards are invariably much more conservative. In fact, there don't appear to be any remarkable claims of weights for leopards from early records (pre 1950s), at least not any which have been considered seriously by any noteworthy source. I am not saying that leopard hunters were more honest in their claims but simply that they were more concerned with boasting the lengths of their trophies rather than weight as the former was widely given more importance in their circles. Thus if you look at the early Rowland Ward records (1935 and before), you'll see there are some ridiculous claims of lengths for leopards but the few listed weights are very mediocre (around 130-150lbs). With that being the case, just as the 276lb gutted Arizona cougar is commonly pointed out as the record specimen in many reference books for that species, the 9'7" Rwanda leopard is often blindly accepted by reference books as the record specimen for this species. Both are completely bogus of course.
I agree with your general assessment on the size of leopards and where they generally reach huge size. One of the key ingredients definitely appears to be the lack or lower density of larger competitors (ie. lions and tigers). Although, prey abundance and prey size/robustness along with climate are also important factors IMO. I would point out however that in East Africa the largest leopards are from mountainous regions which tend to be heavily forested. Thus in these areas they too can be expected to have had much reduced interaction with lions even historically. Although lions certainly did inhabit the East African mountains they would've largely been concentrated in the more open areas as opposed to the dense rainforests. The forest/savanna mosaic environment in these areas would have allowed much greater spatial separation between lions and leopards at a local level than in the savanna bushveld environment in the lowlands. PH Hamilton who studied the leopards of Kenya in his 1981 paper attributes the large size of highland forest leopards (from Aberdares and Mt Kenya area) to plentiful prey and few lions in their environment. Regarding the leopards of Nepal (and the Indian subcontinent in general) I don't think the conditions would have been in place for natural selection to produce particularly huge leopards with any consistency. There certainly is/was an abundance of prey but due to high densities of tigers throughout the wilderness of this region I don't think leopards would've had any large expanses to themselves for competitive release to occur to the extent in the African forests IMO. Indian leopards have historically been the best documented along with those from the East and Southern African savanna. Despite this there doesn't appear to be much to suggest huge specimens like those from the Congo Basin area are found here with any regularity. The single most impressive leopard specimen I'm aware of is one which I have never mentioned here before and I only came to know of about 6 months ago. It is skull KBIN 8640 held in the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences. It is that of an old male leopard killed in the North Eastern DR Congo in the 1940s. The skull has a condylobasal length of 264mm and a zygomatic width of 186mm. Its greatest length isn't stated as the occipital crest was probably damaged but would've easily been in the 290-300mm range. In any case the condylobasal length can be considered at least as good a measure of overall skull size and this skull well exceeds others I am aware of which are all below 255mm in this measurement. To put things in perspective this leopard skull would easily place among very big male Pantanal or Llanos jaguar skulls with respect to skull length at least. This leopard would've comfortably been 90kg+ and even 100kgs may be conservative. For comparison, the heaviest male jaguar weighed for which skull measurements are available (there are several) was a male from the Venezuelan Llanos documented by Hoogenstein and Mondolfi which weighed 121kg (empty stomach) with a condylobasal skull length of 272mm and a zygomatic width of 185mm. Admittedly, this huge jaguar had a relatively narrow skull for its species but nonetheless very impressive that a leopard can have a skull comparable in dimensions to one of the largest jaguars ever recorded. It's possible Turnbull-Kemp's huge Cameroon leopard and the huge Congo leopard hunted by Robin Hurt in the 1980s (which I posted about earlier here) were similar to this specimen. Possibly also the robust mirror attacking male from Gabon from recent camera trap footage. Of course, there are also a number of other leopard skulls from central Africa which measure 270mm+ in total length (while Indian or African savanna leopards struggle to exceed the 250mm mark). However, this skull provides the most solid evidence of how big and impressive a leopard can get which is beyond most people realize. WaveRiders, if you are aware of any other particularly huge leopard (or cougar) specimens which haven't been mentioned here before it would be great to learn about them. Edited by chui, Jun 1 2016, 04:54 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Taipan | May 3 2016, 05:54 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Almost the same : A (99 kg) 218 pound Mountain Lion: ![]() http://www.albertahunt.com/cougar.htm Edited by Taipan, Mar 10 2018, 02:11 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| WaveRiders_ | May 4 2016, 12:16 AM Post #39 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Very good summary Chui. Concerning Rowland Ward’s records it is unfortunate that historically their compilation clearly mixed either total length along/over curves and between pegs in spite of specifying since the earlier editions that lengths should be taken between pegs. In editions after 1935 it is however significantly more probable that the majority / vast majority of total lengths have actually been taken in straight line between pegs. This appears also confirmed by the fact that of the 16 lions reported to be longer then 10’ 4” in the Rowland Ward’s XIV Edition of 1971 that I have only 5 animals have been shot during the 1950s-1960s (range 10’ 4.5” – 10’ 6”) while those shot and reported pre-WW2 are reported up to 10’ 11”. Total lengths approaching or even reaching 11 ft have some (very low) realistic possibilities to be accurate and reliable enough measurements for wild lions only if taken along/over curves (talking only of properly taken measurements as always) and certainly not in straight line between pegs for which the species limit in historical time appears to be no higher then a region around 10 ft 6 inches at the very most. Of the 11 record leopards reported in Rowland Ward ed. XIV (1971) in excess of 8’ 3“ the ones shot during the 1950s-1960s instead count as 7, being the largest a supposed 9’ 0” male from Loliondo in Tanzania shot in August 1959 by A. Conde. Although a few of them are corroborated by reported very large skulls, this evidence strengthening the validity of the record is not the case for all of them. For instance the leopard allegedly measuring 8’ 7” shot by Prince A. Hohenlohe on December 1964 in Aberdares, Kenya, is reported to have a skull 10.5” x 6.5” (total score 17”), quite a large one but not huge as it would be most likely expected by an absolutely exceptional total length of 8’ 7” if measured in straight line between pegs (it is still rather exceptional even if properly measured over curves at such a value). Personally I can very hardly believe a leopard can measure in excess of around 8’ 6” in straight line between pegs and I agree with you that the enormous male reported by Peter Turnbull-Kemp (1967) killed by a trap gun in Cameroon, Central Africa, measuring 8’ 5.5” in straight line between pegs appears as the largest total length of leopards reported likely accurate and reliably enough. Such a monster would have likely measured in the region of 8’ 9” - 8’ 10” along/over curves. Still concerning Rowland Ward’s records I also believe in old editions a mixture of a few evident cases of either estimated and actual scale weights has been done. I may discuss these specific issues at some point in another thread. On regarding prey abundance / density / size favouring existence of leopards with large average body size and very large individuals, where the leopard is the apex predator prey density can occurr at much lower value then the one typically associated with comfortable existence of the larger species tiger and lion, particularly for the tiger larger forms living in semi-tropical and tropical forests. For instance in Gal Oya NP and Wilpattu NP in Sri Lanka where the leopard tops the food chain ungulate density is reported within approximately 750 – 900 kg/km2 while in protected areas of India and Nepal where tigers are present at medium to high density and co-exist with leopards typically ranges within 1700 – 3000 kg/km2. In Gir Wildlife Sanctuary where Asiatic lions and leopards co-exist ungulate biomass reaches approximately 3300 kg/km2 and in Huai Kha and Kaeng WS, Thailand, where tigers, leopards and clouded leopards co-exist ungulate biomass ranges approximately within 900-2000 kg/km2. In Taman Negara NP of Malaysia where again all these 3 felids co-exist ungulate biomass appears to be approximately 200-400 kg/km2 only, while in Bahuran NP and Ujung Kulon NP, Java, where the tiger is extinct and currently the leopard is the apex predator ungulate biomass ranges approximately within 500-1000 kg/km2. I absolutely agree with you that skull measurements when taken consistently and accuratly are a very good surrogate of body size and weight and provide an excellent comparison when evaluating and estimating relative body size intraspecifically. The skull KBIN 8640 hold in the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences of an old male leopard killed in the North Eastern DR Congo in the 1940s that you have so kindly reported is absolutely spectacular. I do not recall to have ever seen reported this skull. Your estimate of greatest skull length from the condylobasal length provided at 264mm is in total agreement with my regression equation suggesting a most likely figure pretty much around 300 mm. Condylobasal length of skull is generally retained more reliable then greatest length to estimate body size of adult specimens as the sagittal and occipital crests development up until relatively old age is not directly correlated to body size. A similar consideration also applies to zygomatic width as this dimension reaches full adult size at a quite later age then the age of complete growth of postcranial skeleton parts relevant to body size (limb long bones, vertebral column, scapula and pelvis), and is the other last skeletal dimension in general to reach full adult size in carnivores. A fundamental issue to be established when comparing skulls is to assess which dimension best represents size differences. The condylobasal length of skull (back of the occipital condyles to the anterior tip of the premaxilla) has been found the best indicator when the main interest of the study is focused on overall skull shape or on head and neck biomechanical analysis. On the other hand the basicranial axis length is best skull variable in other problems focused on examining ontogenetic or differences across speies in relative size of cranial components and different scaling relationships and independent sizes of face and braincase, the two parts forming the skull. Basicranial axis length (BCAL) is the length measured from the midventral border of the foramen magnum to the basisphenoid-presphenoid suture. Therefore condylobasal length is nearly the sum of BCAL and jaw length (measured from the back of the condyle to the front of the median incisor alveolus). Among most terrestrial Carnivore families body weight was found to scale with more extreme positive allometry (higher exponent) versus BCAL then versus condylobasal length. This scaling relationship difference is due to jaw length, which significantly contributes to skull length, to scale in first approximation almost isometrically to body weight. Slope in allometric relationships of jaw length resulted 1.09 when regressed to condylobasal length while it resulted 1.27 when regressed to BCAL. Condylobasal length is generally the best and most common skull dimension used as body size index of carnivorous mammals. As I suggested above the greatest length of skull, which is measured to the most posterior point of sagittal and occipital (lambdoid) crest is often a less appropriate character due to a possible crest development with age not properly correlated with overall body size and thus dependent of the development of a muscular ridge. Yet for some species of carnivores such as the wolverine, greatest length of skull does not show appreciably correlation with age in the adult age class while it has a higher correlation with body size then condylobasal length and represents a more effective body size indicator. The occurrence of this feature is generally observed in species for which body size is strongly correlated with bite force. Using my regression equation for leopards I estimate a monster male leopard having a condylobasal length of 264 mm such as skull KBIN 8640 of the animal killed in the North Eastern DR Congo in the 1940s that you have reported to weigh most likely within the range 100 – 115 kg not gorged and hardly less then 95 kg. With a zygomathic width of 186 mm and an estimated greatest skull of ca. 300 mm his skull would score 486 mm or 19 2/16 entering the so called “huge class” jaguar skull category according to De Almeida. The jaguar from Venezuelan Llanos reported by Hoogenstein and Mondolfi weighing 121 kg with empty stomach with a condylobasal skull length of 271.9 mm and a zygomatic width of 185 mm has a greatest skull length of 308.6 mm. I agree that the skull is quite narrow as my jaguar skull regression suggests a most likely zygomathic width of around 205 mm. With such a total score of 513.6 mm (20 4/16) instead of the actual 493.6 mm (19 7/16) it would have entered the so called “monster class” jaguar skull category. It was probably still a relatively young adult. The reported head-and-body length I found for this animal is among the very longest I have for jaguars being 1700 mm with a tail length of 640 mm (total length 2340 mm). Although most likely the length has been taken over curves it can possibly reach or even exceed any jaguar reported by Almeida. HBL in straight line between pegs of heaviest jaguar reported by De Almeida is 1575 mm with total lengh of 2121 mm and longest total length of 2210 mm belonging to a monster holding the record skull size for several years with a total score of 20 4/16 and estimated to weigh 125-130 kg at empty stomach. One of the topotype individuals of Panthera onca milleri (jaguars from the Mato Grosso, also identified as Panthera onca palustris), is a huge adult male from the wilderness of Corumbà, Mato Grosso, Brazil, with a skull housed in the American Museum of Natural History (No. 37503) with measurement reported by Nelson & Goldman (1933) at 302 mm in greatest length, 277 mm in condylobasal length and 207 mm in zygomathic width allegedly measuring in the flesh 1754 mm in HBL, 665 min in tail length, 2419 mm in total lengh (much likely over curves) and 302 mm in hind foot. The measurements of this skull were taken at 305 x 280 x 207 in GSL x CbL x ZB respectively when re-measured by Cabrera (1934). Another P. o. milleri adult male topotype, different from the previous one, weighed on a platform scale 290 lb (131.5 kg). The largest wild jaguar skull I have accurately and reliably reported belonged to a monster killed and collected by P. Stempel on 18 april 1945 at Cano Agua Verde, Southern State of Guarico, Venezuelan Llanos, in old age weighing 120 kg and measuring 2330 mm in total length. The skull measurements are 312.5 mm in greatest skull lengh, 270.7 mm in condylobasal length and 225.0 mm in zygomathic width and scores 21 3/16. Notice the huge development of the sagittal crest and zygomathic arches partly also due to the old age of the animal. This skull is larger then any skull measured and reported by De Almeida (1976, 1990), the largest and widest of which measures 12” x 8.75” scoring 20 12/16 and the longest of which measures 12.75” x 7 15/16” scoring 20 11/16) and, as far as I am aware, by any other authors including Cabrera’s largest ones such as for instance that of an adult male from Chaco, Paraguay, measuring 304 mm in GSL, 272 mm in CbL and 213 mm in zygomathic width (score 517 mm, 20 6/16). I will definitely have a look in all my old documentations to see if I have some huge leopards and pumas recorded that have not been reported here. As in a good part I have stored them in paper copies only I have to go in another house to get them. I will be able to do it not earlier then in the following weeks, possibly the next one. WaveRiders Edited by WaveRiders_, May 18 2016, 10:24 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| cougar puma | May 4 2016, 08:57 PM Post #40 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Chui, the biggest cougar is about 170 kg, right? |
![]() |
|
| maker | May 4 2016, 09:12 PM Post #41 |
|
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
170 kg? Even the 125 kg cougar was deemed unreliable, that's just going to far:![]() As the posts above shown, the largest cougars recorded would be around 99-105 kg. Edited by maker, May 4 2016, 09:14 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| chui | May 5 2016, 09:25 PM Post #42 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As I've already stated, the heaviest reliably documented weight for a cougar is 227lb (103kg) for a huge male shot by Theodore Roosevelt in Colorodo in 1901. This record can be considered reliable firstly because the source, President Roosevelt has very good credibility as a naturalist. Secondly and more importantly the skull of this specimen was preserved and corroborates the huge size claimed. This skull ranked number 1 in the Boone and Crockett hunting records for many years and still remains one of the very biggest cougar skulls ever recorded a century later. With that being said, the position is not clear on the stomach content of this cougar. So if it was gorged when weighed, its true weight could've been as low as 190lbs as a big cat can eat up to 20% its own weight. But I doubt that was the case and this was probably a genuine 200lb+ cougar. Excerpts relating to this huge specimen from Roosevelt's book, "Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter" 1905. ![]() ![]() ![]() And from Young and Goldman's book, “The puma, mysterious American cat” 1946. ![]() For North American cougars the Boone and Crockett Records provide an excellent database of big specimens hunted in the past century or so. As only skulls with a total score of 15" or above are included in the all time record listings these skulls represent only above average specimens. In the 2005 Boone and Crockett Records which can be viewed here: "Records of North American Big Game", a total of 682 big cougar skulls are listed. In addition to these an additional 33 big skulls are listed here: "Boone and Crockett Club's 26th Big Game Awards". The very top rankings from these records can therefore be considered apex representatives of North American cougars. Of these the heaviest whose weight I'm aware of is Roosevelt's Colorado cougar at 227lb which is also stated to be the maximum recorded weight for the species by Boone and Crockett. After this specimen I know of the recorded weight for at least 4 other top ranking cougars hunted much more recently which can be considered reliable given the skull dimensions. These include the 2 monster specimens Taipan has already posted in this thread as well 2 others which he may not be aware of. The first 3 are all within the top 5 biggest skulls ever recorded for the species by Boone and Crockett. 225.5lb (102.5kg) for a record cougar shot in Alberta in 2005 which had a skull score of 16.13" (241 x 168 mm). This would make it no. 3 out of over 700 big skulls recorded. "Boone and Crockett Club's 26th Big Game Awards" ![]() 220lb (100kg) for a huge cougar shot in Colorado in 2001 with a skull score of 16" (235 x 171 mm). Previously posted by Taipan above. http://dnr.state.co.us/newsapp/press.asp?pressid=2081 ![]() 218lb (99kg) for a huge cougar killed in Alberta in 1999 with a skull score of 16" (240 x 167 mm). Also posted above by Taipan. http://www.albertahunt.com/cougar.htm ![]() 200lb (91kg) for this very impressive cougar killed in Washington in 2002 with a skull score of 15.44" (233 x 159 mm). http://news.hjnews.com/news/huge-lion-taken-locally-or-was-it/article_d4936f1a-f421-56f0-a3c5-f3bd770ea94a.html ![]() These are the heaviest reliable weights recorded for cougars as far as I'm aware (after Roosevelt's cougar). There may be a couple others around the 200-220lb mark which I may have missed but as we can see anything over 200lbs would be very exceptional for a cougar as the above represent very exceptional specimens of this species (out of hundreds of big specimens recorded). Furthermore, it's not clear whether any of these weights were with an empty belly. Though it is stated in the case of the massive 220lb Colorado specimen that it was not gorged and looking at the picture this was no doubt an enormous cat. However, in the case of the 218lb Alberta cougar, its picture while alive (presumably taken while it was treed during the hunt) appears to show at least a moderately full belly. With regards to the 225.5lb Alberta cougar it was said to have been weighed after its corpse had been left frozen overnight and thus may have been heavier if weighed immediately after death but the position is not clear on the stomach content. Apart from these the other heavier claimed weights for cougars are of course the 276lb eviscerated Arizona cougar and the 265lb Utah cougar claimed by Frank Hibbin. However, as I have already explained with detail in my previous post in this thread these have poor reliability with no supporting evidence as far as I'm aware. If the widely claimed 276lb record is to be believed it would mean the live weight of this cougar was over 300lbs. Now bare in mind the average weight of an adult male cougar in Arizona is around 130lbs, so this specimen would've been well over twice the weight of a typical male (bigger by over 230%). And even in populations where cougars reach their greatest size, such a weight would be twice the average adult male weight or more. That is like finding a 900lb+ male lion in the wild! Would any of you take such an extreme weight for a lion seriously? There is no reason to believe the cougar is any more capable of producing such extreme exceptional specimens so far beyond the norm. Based on a proper assessment of the available data on this species, the biggest cougars as indicated by random scientific samples generally seem to be around 80-85kg, maybe up to about 90kg. However, very exceptional specimens like those mentioned above may be around 100kg (empty belly). Edited by chui, May 8 2016, 05:12 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| chui | May 30 2016, 07:43 AM Post #43 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hello WaveRiders. I've been meaning to address some of the points in your post but due to a busy schedule wasn't able to do so sooner. It's always a joy reading your posts as it is very refreshing to have a poster who has indepth knowledge of data of this sort. I generally also find your interpretation of the data to be sound and logical which I think is largely lacking on these forums. In the case of Sri Lanka, it does appear its forests are generally less prey rich than those of India which would be in line with the general trend seen with islands. For this reason perhaps the leopards on this island haven't become significantly bigger than those from the mainland despite being apex predators. As I've stated previously, in Sri Lanka leopards have probably faced conflicting selection pressures influencing their size, on the one hand competitive release due to the lack of tigers leading to expansion of their niche to incorporate larger prey more freely while on the other they may have reduced resources. The end product IMO seems to be leopard which is a little bigger than the Indian variety but I suspect may also show more robust morphological adaptations due to predation on larger prey as well as reduced arboreal habits. Java provides an interesting comparison, it also represents a population of leopards isolated on an island but here the tiger was also present (until exterminated very recently of course). Hence, here unfortunately for leopards the selection pressure imposed by the larger competitor was present as on the mainland but also the pressures of island dwarfism due to relatively scarcer resources. Thus, Javan leopards are quite small despite having prey richness similar Sri Lanka. Interestingly, from the Gal Oya area of Sri Lanka that you mention some huge leopards have been reported as stated in my older post above. With regards to the size of Sri Lankan leopard, EC Fernando a taxidermist who worked with the Columbo Museum as well as the Chicago Field Museum and had apparently handled a large number of hunted leopards appears to be a good authority. In the 1958 publication of "Loris: The Journal of Ceylon Wildlife" he reports a particularly huge specimen measuring 8 feet 0.25 inches (244.5 cm) in total length measured between pegs. This was a reputed cattle killer shot in the north eastern part of the island. Other big Sri Lankan specimens reported in the Loris Journal include an 8 feet 3 inches specimen shot by AW Bowles with no other details, this record is also included in Rowland Wards. Another specimen killed in the Katali district (NE Sri Lanka) in 1928 was reported as 8 feet 2.75 inches between pegs. The latter two may or may not be reliable it is difficult to decipher, however, EC Fernando appears to be a very good source and his measurement can certainly be trusted. He apparently handled a large number of Sri Lankan leopard skulls as well but unfortunately I haven't been able to find details of these. As is usual for leopards we're left with mostly just measurements of total body length. From "Loris: The Journal of Ceylon Wildlife" Volume 8 1958. Unfortunately, the photograph of this huge leopard wasn't included in this publication. ![]() Also from the same publication, another big leopard reported. I'm not sure about the reliability of this one as I don't know anything about this hunter. ![]() In another article, "Ceylon Leopard" published in Loris Volume 11 1968, EC Fernando makes the following interesting and very logical statement regarding the size of the Sri Lankan leopard which IMO can be applied to any big cat: "Even in Ceylon there are two vaguely separable types. The massive and stockily built ones, others lankier and more slenderly built. The size of a leopard, its skull etc, will depend largely on the availability of food and the age of the specimen under examination." Assuming his 8 foot leopard was a well matured and well nourished specimen fitting into the "massive and stockily built" category it could certainly be expected to have been a genuine 200lb cat. The following pictures of 2 different mature males from Yala NP Block 1 demonstrate quite well the impressive proportions Sri Lankan male leopards may reach in such healthy prey rich environments. Most certainly massive and stockily built leopards. ![]()
Edited by chui, May 30 2016, 08:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| WaveRiders_ | May 31 2016, 02:44 AM Post #44 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thank you Chui for your appreciation which I reciprocate. I have not forgotten to look in all my documentation to see if there is anything not yet mentioned here concerning really big leopards and pumas. I have not completed my search yet, but I can already definitely say that you, Taipan and some other posters have covered the topic so well over the last few years in this and other threads of this and other forum past and present that it looks very much unlikely I can add anything relevant on the matter. You all have done a very great job being generous to share results in the public domain. So far it seems to me I may only have a single weight of a big leopard that it may have not reported before if I am not mistaken (otherwise apologies for the redundancy). The data is not scientific, but provided by primary source Vaughan Kirby. I remind that V. Kirby is together with Frederik Selous the most respected hunter / naturalist / explorer of the late 1800s / very early 1900s joined by J. Stevenson-Hamilton to form what I consider the great triad of authors of first-hand historical hunting and natural history literature inherent tropical Africa between late-1800 and mid-1900. Kirby (1896, In haunts of wild game; a hunter-naturalist's wanderings from Kahlamba to Libombo) reports to have shot and weighed a big male hill leopard scaling 172 lb (78.0 kg), although measuring only 6’ 8” (2032 mm) in total length over curves, tail length 2‘ 10” (863.6 mm) and girth of forearm 11.5” (292.1 mm). I cannot really figure out how such a leopard apparently so short in head-and-body length (1168.4 mm over curves) could weigh 78.0 kg unless fully gorged and/or the measurements and/or the weight have been reported with a typo somewhere (as far as I can recall at the moment these data have not been reported anywhere else in Kirby’s writings). This animal was killed somewhere between Kahlamba, KwaZulu-Natal (central eastern South Africa / Lesotho northeastern border) and Libombo (Eastern Swaziland / southern Mozambique border) in the 1880s. I remind that the greatest girth of leopard forearm recorded by Kirby is 13.5” (342.9 mm), suggesting this individual might have been overall even bigger and heavier then the 172 lb aforementioned male. Kirby classify leopards in hill leopards and Low-Country leopards, the former more stocky and robust. ![]() As a complementary information from Kirby, who for the vast majority of his records provides morphometric measurements and not weights, I remind he shot a huge female leopard skinned before being measured, but that he was convinced she would have measured in the flesh 7’ 6” (2286.0 mm) or 7’ 7” (2311.4 mm) over curves (“sportsman style”). This female was 9” (228.6 mm) longer then any other leopard female he had shot by that time, therefore no doubt a very large one indeed, unfortunately nor measured or weighed. ![]() Concerning weight data of big pumas from old scientific literature possibly not reported here at least as a primary cource I have in The Mammals of British Columbia (Cowan & Guiguet, 1960 – first edition from 1956) the following ![]() As it can be seen from the excerpt of the book the reported weight average of N=14 adult males examined from the Canadian Rocky Mountains is 160 lb (72.6 kg) with the heaviest animal weighing 178 lb (80.7 kg). In Western and Coastal British Columbia the weights of the N=8 adult males examined average 123 lb (55.8 kg) with the heaviest puma scaling 175 kb (79.4 kg). I also have another male puma weighing 81 kg (178.6 lb) from Alberta / Western Saskatchewan reported in non-recent scientific literature that it may come from a scientific primary source, but I will need to check better (I suspect it could actually be a hunter record although possibly reliable). It should not be the 178 lb (ca. 81 kg) animal I reported above and it is definitely not the radio-collared puma from Southwestern Alberta weighing 81 kg you reported in post # 2 of this thread. Should I realize I have further info on big leopards and pumas I will report it. WaveRiders BTW: I am still thinking about the leopard skull KBIN 8640 of the animal killed in the North Eastern DR Congo in the 1940s that you have reported having condylobasal length of 264 mm and zygomathic width of 186 mm as so very much impressive. What a monster! Such a leopard would have been a truly terrific sight. Edited by WaveRiders_, May 31 2016, 11:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| WaveRiders_ | Jun 1 2016, 08:35 AM Post #45 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Namibia Weights of a number of leopards immobilized in Namibia have very recently been provided by Weise (2016, An evaluation of large carnivore translocations into free-range environments in Namibia, PhD Thesis) ![]() In the same study some weights of cheetahs are also reported ![]() as well as a few weights of brown hyaenas ![]() Edited by WaveRiders_, Jun 1 2016, 09:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)


































9:49 AM Jul 11